Recruiting people for food stamps in Florida

AT the link is an article about a woman whose job is signing up seniors in Fl for food stamps. Its of interest because the targeted folks are not the stereotypical we're so used to -

-snip -
" In fact, it is Nerios’s job to enroll at least 150 seniors for food stamps each month, a quota she usually exceeds. Alleviate hunger, lessen poverty: These are the primary goals of her work. But the job also has a second and more controversial purpose for cash-strapped Florida, where increasing food-stamp enrollment has become a means of economic growth, bringing almost $6 billion each year into the state. The money helps to sustain communities, grocery stores and food producers. It also adds to rising federal entitlement spending and the U.S. debt.

snip

In Florida and everywhere else, the answer in 2013 is almost always yes. A record 47 million Americans now rely on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), also known as food stamps, available for people with annual incomes below about $15,000. The program grew during the economic collapse because 10 million more Americans dropped into poverty. It has continued to expand four years into the recovery because state governments and their partner organizations have become active promoters, creating official “SNAP outreach plans” and hiring hundreds of recruiters like Nerios.

A decade ago, only about half of eligible Americans chose to sign up for food stamps. Now that number is 75 percent.

snip -

Did he deserve it, though? Lonnie Briglia, 60, drove back to his Spanish Lakes mobile home with the recruiter’s pamphlets and thought about that. He wasn’t so sure.

Wasn’t it his fault that he had flushed 40 years of savings into a bad investment, buying a fleet of delivery trucks just as the economy crashed? Wasn’t it his fault that he and his wife, Celeste, had missed mortgage payments on the house where they raised five kids, forcing the bank to foreclose in 2012? Wasn’t it his fault the only place they could afford was an abandoned mobile home in Spanish Lakes, bought for the entirety of their savings, $750 in cash?

“We made horrible mistakes,” he said. “We dug the hole. We should dig ourselves out.”

Now he walked into their mobile home and set the SNAP brochures on the kitchen table. They had moved in three months before, and it had taken all of that time for them to make the place livable. They patched holes in the ceiling. They fixed the plumbing and rewired the electricity. They gave away most of their belongings to the kids - “like we died and executed the will,” he said. They decorated the walls of the mobile home with memories of a different life: photos of Lonnie in his old New Jersey police officer uniform, or in Germany for a manufacturing job that paid $25 an hour, or on vacation in their old pop-up camper.

Thank you david. Finally someone who gets it. Lonnie is the person that food stamps, welfare, etc. came into being for. Those that have fallen on bad times through no fault of their own. People who take personal responsibility seriously. This isn't the situation he wants to be in, he doesn't want to depend on the government to meet his needs. But thank goodness there is a safety net in place for people like Lonnie.

MrsK thank you for that, some people may not understand how difficult it is for people like this man to have to reach out and ask for help. If we did not have a safety net in place can you imagine what it would have been like in this country during this recession, would have far surpassed the "great depression" that this country went through.

Given the macro-economic forces around these days - everything from 30 years of shipping manufacturing jobs to China, the housing bubble and foreclosure scandal, the current lack of well-paying jobs, the costs of health insurance, and so on - this is what ya get.

It IS embarrassing to admit that one needs help. It makes one feel guilty. And it shouldn't.

The bigger picture of our national economic mess is not the fault of the average citizen. We should not feel guilty or embarrassed to seek help when we need it. That's why it exists... to help those in need.

But somehow... gosh, I wonder how... a lot of people have been convinced that they have no personal responsibility, are just lazy, and are not even trying to reach for those bootstraps that will magically pull them to the top of the economic ladder.

The majority of threads we have on welfare usually end up disgusting me through their lack of charitable undertones.

It's high time someone let the people know that it's not always their fault, and it's not a bad thing to need and ask for help.

Back in the days of paper food stamps, I was standing in the checkout line with a well dressed, white, elderly gentleman buying some food when the cashier yelled out at the top of his lungs to the manager about how to tally food stamp coupons. The poor guy about died on the spot.

meanwhile, over with the F35 soap opera ..... Where we last left off, its going into full production even though it doesn't work. in today's episode, the software won't be ready until sometime in 2017. If everything goes swimmingly.

And this really pisses me off-this man is some how the exact sort of person you want to help-did he make his stupid financial decisions while he was drunk or on drugs-you dont know, but no-here is the exact sort of person we approve of, who deserves the help he gets but not some slut welfare queen with three kids whose husband took a hike and who lost her job and her home. She has to be a coke whore who is injecting her assistance between her toes. Stereotyping garbage.

Of course it is Patricia ... if some had seen this man on, oh lets say a "billboard", judgement would be passed without knowing the story behind the picture. Can you imagine him on a billboard living in a rundown trailer, the response for some would be totally different. He would be "white trash" or a "meth head".

Thank you patricia and ohiomom for recognizing that one does not have the duty to denigrate the group of needy because one does not have available the story of how they got to that point.

It is not anyone's duty to create an atmosphere of such shame and designate an entire group an unworthy takers. It is not ones duty to create the atmosphere of shame and then be proud of the person one does deem worthy of help to be proud of for having the gumption to feel properly shamed for finally taking the help.

Its not ones duty to create an atmosphere of shame about this, period.

Its up to the city/ state branch designated to do the checks necessary in order to weed out those who play the system. If one does not think that the job is being accomplished properly, then take names of those employed to do that job, uncover the circumstances in which they have performed poorly and then turn those those city or state workers in. I could consider THAT one's duty as a tax paying citizen, most certainly.

Also worth noting is that the state of Florida has recognized the benefits to the over-all economy of having that much money redistributed and circulating around - to the point of hiring people to go out and sign up those that are qualified.

IOW, maybe instead of worrying about the poor sod who needs help buying food, we should be looking at the beneficial, multiplier/ripple effect in the economy - all the way from the grocery store, the people they hire, to the farmers, etc.

Well, I actually wondered the same thing as brush. Cannot imagine allowing my parents to live in a barely livable trailer. I'd insist they live with me if I couldn't pay for something better for them. But, maybe the kids' living arrangements are no better. Who knows.

From the article, he does have children and grandchildren . A son was en route to visit - a trip of some distance. Bought Lonnie a much needed air conditioner. Also urged Lonnie to accept the food stamp help that was offered as it was deserved.

Children often don't live in immediate proximity to parents; parents often don't want to uproot to live with children. Some children are clueless about the health and welfare of their parents as some parents go to great lengths trying to hide the fact they're struggling - with even the basics. Children can be struggling themselves. People can grow fiercely independent and often loathe the very thought of becoming a burden.

Also worth noting is that the state of Florida has recognized the benefits to the over-all economy of having that much money redistributed and circulating around - to the point of hiring people to go out and sign up those that are qualified.

Yes! Money going to the local economy.

Where are their children?

If you read the entire article you will have a better idea of the mind set of the father, Lonnie Briglia. He impresses me at someone who will not admit to his children that he needs help. (One son did purchase an air conditioner for the mobile home.) At the end of the article Briglia still has not accepted help. He pulled the card from his pocket and showed it to Celeste. She leaned in to read the small print. “SNAP Outreach,” it read.

Of course they are and I tend to forget that because we are so very close to our children. That's why we live a few doors down from my daughter now. She wouldn't have it any other way. She intends to be our guardian until we die.

This situation is the reason for the program. Seniors are a good target for this program.

I only protest and complain about those who, generation after generation, keep using the benefits. The ones who can work, just choose not to. The ones who have babies in order to qualify. Those same people can qualify for all the free tuition/schooling they want. Yet, they choose to bring babies into the poverty they choose to live in.

Since certain people posting here had to apply for federal assistance in a time of need, they think they have to defend every single person on the dole.

I see no problem in helping this guy out for the rest of his life. He worked long enough for it. He should have all the benefits available.

Also, some parents want a strict parental relationship with their grown children. My mother was very private and independent to the end. She would never wanted to live with any of her children because to her, that would indicate a subtle shift in the relationship, she would have been terribly unhappy.
She would have vastly preferred an independent living place for older people.

She never discussed her finances with us and for us to ask would have been considered to have been shockingly rude and intrusive, it was none of our business. Had for some reason she needed to go on an assistance program, it would have been her last resort and we would have never known it.
The beautiful home they designed and built was paid for and she lived frugally and carefully. When we noticed some repairs were in order we first discussed it with her, then if she was willing, our husbands were more than happy to fix and repair and she was very grateful - but she wanted to know every step of the operation and insisted that she pay for any materials, was always *very* thankful for the help but we all knew who was in charge and it WASN'T us when it came to her home, finances or how she chose to live *LOL*

I would never ever want to live with my child either, Im much like she was, nor would I dream of discussing my finances, nor would I ever accept financial help from him. It would be unthinkable to me. But he knows where our documents are and has since he became an adult, living his own life.
However, if his job allowed him to live close to us and he offered to help me with some inside vaulted ceiling painting I have ahead of me, I wouldn't exactly chase him out the house!
;)

To the subject, in a situation where you dont have all the facts, never assume that adult children wont help out, often they would be flatly refused because of the dynamics of the way the parents want the relationship to remain. There are a lot of parents who feel strongly this way. Often to the adult children's exasperation.

"I would never ever want to live with my child either, Im much like she was, nor would I dream of discussing my finances, nor would I ever accept financial help from him. It would be unthinkable to me."

I am curious--- that's all---to know if you would rather go on public assistance than ask your son for help if you needed it.

.....and you are the second one I have read on here that has said that. Well guess what I live with my son.

Must be nice when "some" people to still have the choice to do as they please, unfortunately there are more and more people like the Lonnies in this current society and many "grown" children moving back home to mommy and daddy.

My children would never think about "throwing mama off the train".

Enjoy and be thankful for what you are able to do ... because there but for the grace....

We've offered my grandmother a place to live with us should she want it.

For now, she is still in good health, full mobility, and financially capable of taking care of herself (I hope I'm in as good shape when I'm her age) so she is independent.

But when she needs help, financially or physically, there is not a single one of her children or grandchildren - no matter WHAT position they are in themselves - who will not be lined up to have her come live with them.

I don't care if I had to live on a diet of Ramen noodles and dirt for the rest of my life... my grandmother will never be in dire straits while I'm alive.

I don't know the answer to that question kswl, Ive never thought about it to be honest. I don't know what I would do. I do know that I paid my full fair share into the system though. Would it be more correct for me to utilize the system that exists for me should I end up in circumstances that are dire, or would it be more correct for me to ask my son, who is not on a financial easy street, to support me? I don't know, both options would be very, very disheartening. For myself, I rather expect I would bite the bullet and apply for aid, if I qualified and things were that desperate. People do what it is they have to do according to the situation at hand, if that included both applying for assistance and living with my adult child, then of course that is what I would do if it kept me from being homeless. For me personally, if there was any other way other than asking for my child's help, I would first exhaust every other way - this is what I think I would do. I cant know because I haven't yet faced that situation.

Ohiomom, if I offended you with that statement, please believe it was certainly not intentionally done.
I didn't mean it to be a personal statement to anyone here nor did I mean for it to come off as somehow bragging. As a matter of fact, I have mentioned many times that we are a couple of modest means.
What I stated is how I suspect I would feel about a situation should it present itself - an opinion. Why you would imply that my child would 'throw me off the bus', that I really don't understand. He wouldn't. I don't know why you said that. I don't understand why you took my remarks personally as insulting, or personally, period, and hope you will explain.

Im not sure what I've said that is offensive or insensitive, we were giving our thoughts on the subject offered and I gave mine.

nor would I ever accept financial help from him. It would be unthinkable to me."

Some people have no choice but to accept help from their children. You happen to have enough means to allow it to be unthinkable to you... but not everyone is in those same circumstances. For it to be unthinkable is a luxury that some people do not have.

I don't believe it was your intent... but I think the wording was a little... haughty? Distanced from what other people face? Again, I know it was not your intention... it was just the wording. I do that at times too and then have to go back and explain myself better... find better words for what I was trying to say.

I didn't say your child would throw you off the "TRAIN", I said mine wouldn't. None of us here really "know" each other on a personal basis and I imagine at one time or another more than one person here has felt the sting of someone's words even if not intended, so yeah sometimes other people's remarks rub me the wrong way ... don't take it personal.

If a person qualifies for assistance and needs it, there should be no shame & no judgment about them receiving it. Having been a single parent, living paycheck to paycheck, I know how it felt to wonder if I could make it until the next check. I would not have hesitated to accept help for food, shelter, or medical care if I had found myself in need of it. I was fortunate that I never had to, but there were times when I worried if I would make it.

Thank you very much Ham, you explained it very well and I think now I do understand, and Im glad Ohiomom that you did come back and explain. Im embarrassed at having made such a thoughtless mess of things.
Kswl, you are very kind, it's appreciated.

Bothell, there were some years in our early marriage when, despite his being in the military, at our pay grade we were considered to be living below the poverty line. Those were very hard years, money, and having enough to make it until the next payday was an ever present, constant real worry and stress filled times.
We had no family at all nearby, it was a very lonely and difficult time. We should have taken the assistance we more than qualified for but the shame attached to having aid was too great to bear.
I agree with you so much, there should be no shame ever attached to receiving aid. It should be the feelings compassion that is attached, People needing it have enough burdens of worry on their shoulders to have to worry about what negatives are assumed.
We live in a country which decided that people living in a desperate financial condition were to be helped, not to be punished with shame and suspicion for needing help.
Its not like anyone can kick back and enjoy an easy peasy ride if they are forced to accept state assistance in order to make it.

Its true that some scam the system but why make all those already burdened with great need pay the price of the shame that belongs only to the small percentage of those who are dishonest scammers?

So sorry, Brush... I don't always get to read articles and view videos... and I bypass certain posters out of habit and for reason... so I use the context that I see at the early hour I read and post, most usually. I made a mistake, and I'm willing to accept fault for it. Does that make you feel better?

Of those 5 children, how many are wealthy enough to help, and will they? Should they? Is that up to them, or up to you?

The problem is the other side of the coin. This is a perfect example of why we have a need for this safety net. But it does not belie the fact that as I heard this morning, we have a 2 trillion dollar a year underground economy. This is people who are collecting unemployment, food stamps, welfare payments, yet are working under the table for cash. 2 TRILLION dollars is the best estimate, and that doesn't include scamming for benefits. No one has ever said that we don't need the safety nets, some of us have said that the government needs to do a better job of keeping the scammers off the roles in order for this safety net to stay in place for people like Lonnie.

It's not up to me. But I often see you refer to loving thy neighbor, taking care of each other, especially in time of need. Doesn't that apply to family? Of course it does. Most of the time the love thy neighbor and my brother's keeper are empty words here in HT and reality. I understand that.

As for me and my wife, we'd rather be dead than live with a strained or non existent relationship with our children. Thank God we can keep living and enjoying them.

"Also worth noting is that the state of Florida has recognized the benefits to the over-all economy of having that much money redistributed and circulating around - to the point of hiring people to go out and sign up those that are qualified.

IOW, maybe instead of worrying about the poor sod who needs help buying food, we should be looking at the beneficial, multiplier/ripple effect in the economy - all the way from the grocery store, the people they hire, to the farmers, etc.".

.....

"A young hoodlum, say, heaves a brick through the window of a baker's shop. The shopkeeper runs out furious, but the boy is gone. A crowd gathers, and begins to stare with quiet satisfaction at the gaping hole in the window and the shattered glass over the bread and pies. After a while the crowd feels the need for philosophic reflection. And several of its members are almost certain to remind each other or the baker that, after all, the misfortune has its bright side. It will make business for some glazier. As they begin to think of this they elaborate upon it. How much does a new plate glass window cost? Two hundred and fifty dollars? That will be quite a sum. After all, if windows were never broken, what would happen to the glass business? Then, of course, the thing is endless. The glazier will have $250 more to spend with other merchants, and these in turn will have $250 more to spend with still other merchants, and so ad infinitum. The smashed window will go on providing money and employment in ever-widening circles. The logical conclusion from all this would be, if the crowd drew it, that the little hoodlum who threw the brick, far from being a public menace, was a public benefactor."'

there were some years in our early marriage when, despite his being in the military, at our pay grade we were considered to be living below the poverty line.

What? I don't understand. Your husband was in the military and the military didn't pay enough for his family to be above the poverty line? I am all too often ashamed to be American. That is just awful.

But it does not belie the fact that as I heard this morning, we have a 2 trillion dollar a year underground economy. This is people who are collecting unemployment, food stamps, welfare payments, yet are working under the table for cash. 2 TRILLION dollars is the best estimate, and that doesn't include scamming for benefits.

Besides the unemployed, unemployable, under-employed and people on unemployment, disability, public assistance and retirement benefits working for cash/barter, much of the population working for cash/barter are business owners, the self employed and workers that already have a job or two.

We can't hire many former subs and helpers since they'll only work for cash/barter, they have no insurance and they work without plans, permits, inspections, licenses, certifications, paperwork, warranties etc.

Many will only work out of town, indoors, nights and weekends to avoid detection, plus they'll only pay cash for equipment, parts and materials. Many want us, or customers to pay for all the materials as well.

Customer demand is driving much of this activity. On a daily basis we have customers asking for a "cash deal". We lose many jobs to lowballers, side jobbers and trunk slamers working for cash without licenses, insurance, permits, inspections, guarantees etc.

To lowball a job, many have to cut corners left, right and center, so they generally violate many codes as well.

Many have been priced out of the job market due to rules, regulations, labor laws, rising minimum wages etc, so they have no choice but to create their own work.

Several of our relatives babysitting for around $3 per hour have lost their jobs to babysitters working for less, or being paid in food stamps, or barter - No, I'm not kidding!

How might progressives speak of Mr. Briglia, had his small business taken off and become profitable?

The word "greed" gets thrown around a lot, as if a business owner wanting to make money and protect his investments has a character flaw. Next time that word "greed" pops up, think of Mr. Briglia. Don't assume a businessman who worked his tail off to build a thriving business is guilty of greed. He could be very much like Mr. Briglia.

While some posters seem to instinctively (or from experience) understand and appreciate what small business owners put on the line to get where they are, others don't seem to have put much thought into the magnitude of the risks these people take on. Nor do they seem to have thought much about the damage to incentives when government and liberal politicians obsess over raising new taxes and issuing new burdens and regulations.

I hope some of the folks who belatedly have insight to the unpleasant realities of failed entrepreneurship will be a little less eager to demonize the business owners who find success. Few of them wake up one day and start reaping profits. Let's remember that Democrats and the president started the year with one tax increase, and they're already demanding another one!

Best wishes to Mr. Briglia. Thank you for what you tried to do. May you be one of the legions of business owners who learn from one or more unsuccessful experiences, and come back with a better idea that leads to much success. Some of us believe entrepreneurs did "build that" and know how important you are to our future.

"Swallow your Pride" I have known people that will not swallow their pride. To deny that is living in a bubble. Some people have family that would not hesitate to help take their family in but some cannot swallow their pride.

So I understood what mylab was saying. I have a friend that lost her job and she has no siblings but close relatives that would take her in and have tried to get her to live with them. I have tried to get her to come live with me.

She lived in her car and now in a homeless facility and work temp jobs. This woman was a caseworker for the State, college educated until she lost her job, and her home.

There are people that feel living off of someone because they are experiencing hard times as something they cannot do. She said to me it was the last thing she has is her right to pull herself out of the problem. I cannot argue how she chooses to pull herself up.

Although I have a lot of pride I do not know if I could go this far. I think roughing it is staying at a Holiday Inn so I would probably be knocking on someone's door. But I would not knock on their door until I was put in the streets.

I had hard times when my husband and I separated. I drank orange juice and feed my daughter. My parents were very able financially to make sure that did not happen. When they saw me go down 3 dress sizes they voiced concern. I still told them I was just worried. My Mom scoped my fridge and realized the truth and filled that fridge up.

It is pride as the OP was clear to me the way he kept saying it was his fault. When you feel it is your fault you do not go looking for who you can go lay up on and get on your feet. That is the last knock down to your pride. Right or wrong it is the way some look at a situation.

As for the 2 trillion underground economy, how much of that is illegal drugs?

Around here, there are a group of young men who do seasonal work in the summer, just long enough to qualify for unemployment during hunting season and the winter. Which means they are in the formal economy.

Around here, there are a group of young men who do seasonal work in the summer, just long enough to qualify for unemployment during hunting season and the winter. Which means they are in the formal economy.

In these parts, although many are unemployed, or work in the underground economy, they won't work during large parts of the spring turkey season, spring salmon, trout, walleye and pike season, bass season, fall turkey season, fall northern zone bow/rifle season, fall southern zone bow/shotgun season, fall salmon season, first ice icefishing season or during fishing contests.

That doesn't include the people that won't work since they're riding motorcycles, quads, muddin', boating, camping etc.

Many have been fired as they miss work due to these activities as well.

What difference does it make how Briglia made or lost his money? The bottom line is that he has a need for food stamps. I don't see his refusal to take the stamps as an indication of his heroism. I see him as a man who is very self-centered and does not see how this is hurting his family. If he doesn't do it for himself, shouldn't he at least do it for his wife?

Again, Brush... I think it's going to depend upon the individual and the individual situation.

What if my son and his family are already burdened and under financial stress... I don't think it fair of me to ask him to make room for two more, plus my dogs, which are lifetime commitments, and adjust his life to suit my predicament.

So, I think that "love thy neighbor" goes both ways.

While I know he'd never allow me to become homeless, I can't further burden him when he has issues of his own to deal with.

But then, I'm not the sort to accept state aid for a day longer than I need it. I'm an adult, and I can find a way to manage. Families with little ones need that help a lot more than I do. I would only accept it if I were in dire need, and I'd only utilize it until I fixed the situation.

But the OP is more about people who may not know they can get the help they need, or are too proud to ask, or feel terribly guilty for needing help, etc... it's sad, but there are a lot of illiterate people in this country who don't even know where to begin when it comes to attaining help... any kind of help.

" I see him as a man who is very self-centered and does not see how this is hurting his family."

This reminds me of an interview with some family in Phoenix during the worst of the housing collapse, their house was so far underwater it was a joke, maybe paid $500,000 for something now worth $100,000 if they were lucky, and the mortgage payments were so high, that it was all they could do to pay it off. So they were surviving on Ramen noodles, they'd stopped all the kids activities, no more medical visits, etc etc,

The Steely Eyed Wife was so het up on "Personal Responsibility" that there was no way she would walk away from the house, even though that would have been the logical, and from the family standpoint, moral, thing to do. Owe your soul to Countrywide Financial, or maybe take care of your kids.......

We are what we were raised to be. My parents had big dreams and worked hard at the real estate/building business, but never grabbed the brass ring. They were very proud and didn't want assistance, but in their last years my sisters and I each spent as much making them comfortable as I spent putting 3 kids through College.
Fast forward a few years and I need Cataract surgery. My ex-wife drove me to the appointment, but my grandson had the school day off and had to come with us. He spilled the beans. I hadn't told any of my kids of the surgery, and they were miffed!
Pride is in all of us and we don't want to share the fact we are breaking down.
I had/do have insurance and budgeted for what it wouldn't cover but I never planned for the emotional backlash.

The Steely Eyed Wife was so het up on "Personal Responsibility" that there was no way she would walk away from the house, even though that would have been the logical, and from the family standpoint, moral, thing to do. Owe your soul to Countrywide Financial, or maybe take care of your kids.......

*

That steely eyed mother provided much more important sustenance to her children--character.

That steely eyed mother provided much more important sustenance to her children--character.

She is teaching rigidity in thinking -- ignoring the obvious which is telling her she is not making the correct decision.

She made a business decision, and as thousands of businesses do every day, she needs to reassess the implications of that decision, and rethink her position. If foreclosure or bankruptcy offers better options for her family, she should pursue that path.

In my opinion her first obligation is to do what is best for her children. If that means pursuing the legal option of bankruptcy (or whatever else there is available), so be it.

Demi, at first I did agree with you when this thing began - but the more I heard, the more I questioned my stand.
Banks neglected homes which they took back, rats invaded, lawns died, the neighbors lost value in their own home because the banks lacked the character to do the right thing about the homes that now belonged to them.
Some failing banks also walked away from property THEY themselves owned which value was of far less value due to the market crash. That is what decided me.
. The bank's own lack of character and sense of ethics is what changed me from thinking like you did. At first I thought, a deal is a deal, you have to keep your end of a bargain which has turned bad for you.
. But when you find out the dealer is dirty, there is no ethical question left about getting yourself out of the game.
This business taught me something I had not previously realized: rules of ethics don't always apply in the same way in every situation. Although its easy, way too easy for one to allow too much fluid movement when it comes to applied ethics by the average joe, the bank's deplorable behavior negated, to me, extreme and unnecessary sacrifice that they wouldn't even make about the very properties they themselves owned.

Id bet a lot that the woman did eventually walk away from that home- or managed to get it refinanced into an understandable business deal that makes ethical sense - and that hopefully her children did learn lots of very valuable lessons about business, ethics, character and the reality of business life. Especially the need for a big business to be of as clean hands as they expect their customers to be.

This has been a terrible time for a lot of people. A lot had to make some very difficult choices. If they trashed houses as they walked away though, forget about the idea of character or ethics, they will never understand, I suspect that they don't even want to.

That steely eyed mother provided much more important sustenance to her children--character.

Yes but was it a positive character?

Character of empathy for others and knowing that some people need help and get the help they need and learning to give back to others.

Kindness demonstrated to a child that is suffering can leave a love in the heart of a child. A love of your fellow human beings that can help develop a well adjusted adult. An Adult that feels it should show the same giving and love to others that was shown to that person as a child.

vs

An Adult that has no empathy because it was shown no empathy. Grew up thinking that people should not care about others.

I will take the latter Adult human character. The other is a very mentally flawed human being.

Being able to realistically reassess a decision, and explore other options is also a valuable trait. Circumstances change, and one needs to be able to adapt one's thinking to new and changing situations.

You mean like how the same companies and banks who stuck this lady with an over-priced mortgage, bundled it up and sold it, along other bogus mortgages as AAA rated securities, and when that fell apart, had President Bush and Secretary of Treasury Paulson bail them out with billions of tax payer dollars?

Instead of the share holders at the banks taking their responsibility for bad investments?

Think about it - can there be any more selfish phrase than "personal responsibility"? To let your children suffer just so you can be a purist in the category of never taking a dime from the government is not my idea of good parenting. To teach your children that sometimes people need help gives them an understanding of what lending a helping hand truly means and allows them understand the concept of empathy.

You mean like how the same companies and banks who stuck this lady with an over-priced mortgage, bundled it up and sold it, along other bogus mortgages as AAA rated securities, and when that fell apart, had President Bush and Secretary of Treasury Paulson bail them out with billions of tax payer dollars?

Instead of the share holders at the banks taking their responsibility for bad investments?

That character?

*

I'm not defending mortgages companies and certainly no one that lied, misrepresented, or violated laws, but no one "stuck" the lady with anything.

If the mortgage company lies, misrepresents and commits malpractice, then I'd say that they DID stick the lady with something.

*

No one forced anyone to sign.

People are responsible for the decisions they make and should be prudent and if they're doing something they don't know anything about they should research and educate themselves rather than be greedy and indulge in immediate gratification.

Of course not all people caught up in the housing explosion were indulging themselves in this way, but plenty were.

Our government encouraged this irresponsibility.

Many people did not take the time to educate themselves about the loan process, to learn terms, or to read the contract--which is actually what they signed and what the agreement was.

Many people lost their homes for different reasons--and a good number of those lost because they wanted that home with the granite countertops and could not afford it and they knew it. They didn't care.

I recall living in 2005 while building our retirement home a woman standing in the door of a new home in a growing subdivision being interviewed on television.

She was bragging about how she got this fabulous house and no money down--interest only loan. I said at the time this was going go be big mess. I've read that 42% of loans at that time were interest only--in California they neared 80%.

Ah, its so lovely to see the housing boom victim stereotype rear its head once again. Yes, all those millions and millions of people were out buying granite countertop, 4000 sq ft monstrosities with no down payment, interest-only mortgages knowing that they could flip 'em within weeks, making lots of money. Greedy little irresponsibles.

Nope, there were no just plain old working stiffs, buying basic, 1500 sq foot housing in a grossly inflated market where half a duplex went for $350,000 - like Phoenix, Las Vegas, parts of California, etc. Pay that or pay exorbitant rent.

And then when the Great Bush Recession hit, with job losses of 600,000 a month, 8 million thrown out of work, the people who couldn't make their house payments were then subject to robo-signing, evictions, millions of foreclosures.

Housing prices collapsed. Millions of people now stuck making payments on homes/condos/duplexes worth 1/3 what they could sell them for - if they could sell them at all since credit had all but evaporated.

And so out of a job, making payments on a worthless house, lets keep this up and make payments, yes, out of "Personal Responsibility" while the kids eat Ramen Noodles.

Or move to some place where you can get a job, rent, start over, and walk away from the house. Let some vulture - say, the guys who used to run Countrywide, buy it for what its now worth.

"That steely eyed mother provided much more important sustenance to her children--character."

Well shame on her! It's that damned audacity of hope, rearing its ugly head. These steely eyed types keep thinking they're smart enough to find their OWN way out. What is WRONG with these people?

That foolish woman has no idea how good it will make her feel when she walks away and leaves somebody else holding the bag for her mortgage. And Mr. Briglia has no idea how much he will enjoy his meals once somebody else pays for them!

If only these outliers would get in the victim line like docile little children. It's the "moral" to do. In fact, failure to admit defeat is not a strength. It just shows how "self centered" they are.

What is it going to take to get these people to GIVE UP and go on the dole with all those Democrats?

If the children started losing their teeth or had periods of starvation, it sounds to me like that mother put her own needs ( it is a need) ahead of the health and welfare of her own children. That would be neglect and physical abuse. Not a person who should be raising children. A mother's very first responsibility, above all others, is to see to reasonable nutrition and a roof, even if its from a shelter, and to the education of her offspring. Not to some sense of honor she adheres to to a bank who shows, by example, what is expected when properties go under.

People have to do the right and ethical thing. But first they have to be able to sit down and decide exactly what that would be under extreme circumstances, where careful thought about a complex issue is being faced.
No one size fits all circumstances and but only if life really could be so simple and without complexities so that such great, sometimes uncomfortable thought wasn't needed.

Sometimes it can be less about ethics and character and more about punitive attitudes and measures?

Demi, I want to be clear that in the beginning of the housing free fall I did absolutely agree with you. It was only when the stories began to break about the banks unwillingness to keep the abandoned homes at least somewhat presentable which ruined not only the house but killed the value of the other homes around them. It took court orders to force the banks to keep them in somewhat reasonable looking shape.
When banks themselves actually walked away from properties that ended up not having the value of the loan, that I decided that it wasn't a moral obligation on a struggling home owner to honor the same contract that banks themselves refused to honor, for EXACTLY the same reason. With their own unethical behavior they displayed iver and over again, they set the standard of moral behavior that was to be expected from their own customers, imo

I do consider it a very complex issue, where everything was upside down and all points required long and careful consideration.

Demi, I want to be clear that in the beginning of the housing free fall I did absolutely agree with you. It was only when the stories began to break about the banks unwillingness to keep the abandoned homes at least somewhat presentable which ruined not only the house but killed the value of the other homes around them. It took court orders to force the banks to keep them in somewhat reasonable looking shape.
When banks themselves actually walked away from properties that ended up not having the value of the loan, that I decided that it wasn't a moral obligation on a struggling home owner to honor the same contract that banks themselves refused to honor, for EXACTLY the same reason. With their own unethical behavior they displayed iver and over again, they set the standard of moral behavior that was to be expected from their own customers, imo

I do consider it a very complex issue, where everything was upside down and all points required long and careful consideration.

For some, there might not be a single morally correct response.

*

I don't disagree with you--that's why I said situations are different. There are certainly people that practiced personal responsibility that lost their houses or a lot of money, anyway.

Yes--there are some instances that I can see the right thing would be filing bankruptcy. I just don't happen to think that bailing out because it gets tough is always the moral thing to do because the family may have to sacrifice in order to honor one's obligations.

My point was that the mother mentioned that was determined to pay her debt did indeed teach her children a lesson in character, and that is a good thing.

I just don't happen to think that everyone is a victim and that the lenders were always the bad guys.

What is it going to take to get these people to GIVE UP and go on the dole with all those Democrats?

"I guess you don't have a good answer then."

You are right. That would be presumptuous. I do not believe I am better equipped to come up with "a good answer" than the people involved. I'll leave that to the Democrats.

Go ahead and sing the praises of easy access to dependency. While government is sending out nannies with quotas to meet, we actually have stubborn folks continuing to insist they are looking for other options! There has to be something seriously wrong with people like that.

In a world were commissions are earned or bonuses given for getting the most signatures, whether the persons signing understand all the details or not, it's not impossible to think that many mortgages were approved and signed without complete honesty on the part of all parties involved.

And as has been noted, the job market crashed... the housing bubble not the only one to have burst.

It comes down to the fact that blood cannot be squeezed out of a turnip... you can either pay, or the money is simply not there no matter how hard one tries to scrape it together.

Let's also not forget that we are not talking about placing poor families into mansions they know they cannot afford.

There are, as Mylab states, a variety of individual circumstances and situations. Not every family falls into the same rhetorical category.

If I had to weigh the circumstances of a lost job that payed plenty to make the mortgage, and now it's gone... should I suck it up and make my children suffer? Or should I file bankruptcy and ensure my children were safe and healthy... gee... let me think...

Doh! Any parent worth his or her salt chooses their children first and foremost. We don't pledge allegiance to banks. They are not gods.

The biggest issue I see here is the childish, ignorance response that a family shows personal responsibility to suffer in a situation that is not feasible financially, or for the health of the family.

Corporations file bankruptcy, walk away from properties, let employees go and close their doors. They have the best financial advisers, lawyers, and accountants. But if a lay person without all that professional assistance makes a disastrous financial decision they should just bury themselves and prove they have Personal Responsibility. Some how this instills some magical character into their children's lives.

It was a contract this family signed Oh how stupid they did not know what they were signing. They should show Personal Responsibility.

This is telling that some do not have a clue and someone else had to handle their affairs or they would be sitting on the corner drinking rain water because they do not know what is involved with home buying or contracts. Perhaps someone told them to sign on the dotted line and someone else showed the Personal Responsibility so they do not know the true meaning of the saying.

Hays No you do not have to file bankruptcy to walk away from a home.

It will effect your credit rating if you walk away. But not for life. Staying in a home that is underwater does effect your power to use the home as collateral for repairs, or any other purchase or to start business.

If you are a looking for a business loan it is better financially to walk away than to stay. You can get a business loan if you do not have the underwater property in your portfolio. Even if your portfolio is empty starting a new business is more apt of being approved if you do not have a losing asset hanging around your neck.

Kenny Rodgers said it best "You got to know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em, Know when to walk away, know when to run".

"You mean like how the same companies and banks who stuck this lady with an over-priced mortgage, bundled it up and sold it, along other bogus mortgages as AAA rated securities, and when that fell apart, had President Bush and Secretary of Treasury Paulson bail them out with billions of tax payer dollars?"

Here's one. My nephew bought a house near Vegas (he's young; this was his starter home). Bank said house was worth $95K. He put down $10K and signed a note for the rest. 2 years and 24 payments later, the bank reassessed the property and now advised that it was worth $15K (this is about 5 years ago). His second reaction (first was major dismay) was to say "I did this; I have to continue to pay as though this was a $95K house. He worried about his credit. Several months later, he changed his mind and told the bank, you can have your house back, and walked away. He's renting now, will build his credit back up, and life goes on. That's one true life scenario.

I am all for personal responsibility, so is he. I say he is right in this particular situation.

There's a lot to be said for reading between the lines... but I digress.

I think it basically comes down to this... if those who were so greedy had been a little more forward thinking, a little less greedy, and didn't want a welfare state, they should not have created one with that greed and lack of thought regarding eventual consequences.

""You mean like how the same companies and banks who stuck this lady with an over-priced mortgage, bundled it up and sold it, along other bogus mortgages as AAA rated securities, and when that fell apart, had President Bush and Secretary of Treasury Paulson bail them out with billions of tax payer dollars?"

Nice story. Nice Imagination. Matt Taibbi should be worried about his job.

I actually followed some of my links up above.

I don't feel like tracking it down, but, in Spain, as in some other countries, a mortgage is, at least, typically, NOT a Nonrecourse Loan (wikipedia), like they ARE in the good ole USA.

Meaning,

In the USA, your house is the collateral, and that's all a lending company can go after. In Spain, they can come after YOU.

If I needed to hire a savvy financial person, and other things being the same, I'd choose the person who walked away from a house that was underwater over someone who stuck with it.

In fact, back in the days when I was hearing that people were getting mortgages with essentially "nothing down", if I weren't so lazy, I would have found such a deal.

It's a free option on the value of the house. Thanks, in large part to the government and its creation, (thank you, FDR!!!), Fannie Mae, which would take any mortgage you handed to them.

""You mean like how the same companies and banks who stuck this lady with an over-priced mortgage, bundled it up and sold it, along other bogus mortgages as AAA rated securities, and when that fell apart, had President Bush and Secretary of Treasury Paulson bail them out with billions of tax payer dollars?"

Very interesting question. When I sign a contract, I've always thought of it as a commitment. I give my word to hold up my end of the bargain.

If that were always the case, they wouldn't put default language into mortgages. The default language is there for a reason - to outline what happens if someone decides to walk away from the loan. I am certain the mortgage companies would like people to believe it's a "moral" issue but it really is just business - just like it isn't a "moral" issue for them when they stick their clients with bad loans.

In commercial lending, there is what's known as a non-recourse loan. The borrower can hand back the keys to the lender and walk away from the loan (and the property) and, unless you committed fraud or waste, they cannot come after you. They have to take back the property.

A question - if you're, say, half the way through paying down the principal on a mortgage and for some reason, are unable to refinance or continue paying, and the house gets foreclosed and auctioned off, if the sale price is greater than the remaining half the mortgage, do you get some of your money back?

So $200,000 / 20 year mortgage, you pay on it for 15 years, now down to $100,000 principal, and you lose your job etc, the bank forecloses and auctions the house off for $175,000, do you get $75,000, less fees and such? Or are you just out of luck?

In many states, if a bidder offers more than is necessary to pay off the defaulted debt during a foreclosure auction, the former owner gets the excess cash - on the assumption that the original owner can be found. Until such time, the excess sits in unclaimed fund pools.

But if 80 to 90% of foreclosures have already been taken back by the bank, seems only up to 20% of original owners might be due any excess.

I find this a bit confusing on the face of it - either it's possible to be due money back or you're not.

I find this a bit confusing on the face of it - either it's possible to be due money back or you're not.

It is meant to be confusing. You are suppose to get the excess. But as those Personal Responsible banks, corporations, and those that do not have Personal Responsibility do what they do best and do not do the responsible thing. They do not search for the previous owners to give them the excess. They pocket the extra because the law is written so vague it is not even set aside in your name. So it goes back into operations.

If there was money in it you would see lawyers advertising like they do with SS Disability, and Accident recovery. It would cost more in billable hours to get the extra money. Now that is Personal Responsibility for just us.

Just glancing at a few searches, I get the impression that state laws are a big factor in Mortgage Contracts.

I really doubt, but I don't know, and I don't care enough to research it, but I'd imagine that the owner would get any residual. As much as we'd ( marquest, can you support your post?) like to think otherwise, I think much of laws in this matter will favor the homeowner.

It's certainly not as uniform and clean as I was imagining with all the different states getting involved.

For instance , it looks like sometimes you can be on the hook, in some states, for amounts owed that are not recovered in a foreclosure sale.

"If you are facing foreclosure, or have lost your home through foreclosure, you might still owe your mortgage lender money after the sale. This happens if the foreclosure sale price is less than the amount remaining on your mortgage - it's called a "deficiency." Whether your lender can go to court and get a judgment for the deficiency, and then collect it, depends on state law. Below you can find the law on deficiencies in each of the 50 states."

It's never simple, is it?

Makes you wonder if living under that bridge might be the best option.

Don't quote me on this but I believe that if the bank sells your home for more than you owe them and all who are owed money have been satisfied, they are required by law to reimburse you the overage minus "reasonable" fees. I also think the banks don't always let the person who is foreclosed upon know there is an overage and so the foreclosed upon person would need to contact them to get reimbursed. Also how much can they claim as "reasonable" fees?

Surely the point is that the 'bank' who loaned the money-who acutally owns the house gets to keep the house. If they were honest then they have an honest asset so what is the problem-you are giving them everything you paid up front and in monthy payments up and until the moment that you can pay no more. How are you morally offending if they get the house? The nasty truth which is they loaned the money knowing that you could not afford it or that the house is not worth what you paid for it is beside the point-they get their own back..see..moral...

Why is it that whenever the topic of "personal responsibility" comes up, its always punitive in some way and always, always all about someone OTHER than our selves. Its always about someone who has seemingly failed through our perception, who needs to own that failure, publicly is preferred and then suffer the punishment for the failure. Punishment we deem appropriate of course.

But when someone does complain about the lacking of personal responsibility, its never ever about owning their own failings, its only all about somebody elses. Usually a person with a great burden like a worthless home with a killer mortgage due - or group, usually regarding of a group of the poor. Often the group of poor young mothers with a child. None of whom we know personally or whom we have any personal information about regarding their circumstances.

We certainly never complain about any group, usually poor, usually young mothers for whom we DEMAND to accept the personal responsibility for the great success of surviving yet another day of the ongoing and exhausting efforts to elevate her station in life and never having enough resources to allow for a peaceful night of sleep. But still helps her child with his homework every night, listens to him and really hears what he is saying, and as her child stumbles and falls she is never too distracted to apply a band aid to his knee and his heart. He learns compassion from her fine example as his mother sees to it that he is guided with the knowledge that he has the choice to choose to become a person of value and worth for who he is rather than ever allow himself to be defined by his financial circumstances. That through her he can know what are the most important values in life and embrace them in a way that we, who are so much better off materially, might never really grasp. And that his young single, poor but fine mother gave these gifts to him.

We never seem to stand up and demand that she and those same those hundreds of thousands of individuals from those circumstances to publicly pat themselves on the back, accepting the full personal responsibility to receive the praise of surviving their lives in spite of fools such as ourselves.

mylab - you are a very wise lady! I am always thinking the same thing when I read tthe words "personal responsiblity" on this forum. It's just a backhanded way to slam the people they perceive as below them. Plain and simple. Simpy disgusting, if you ask me.

mylab - you are a very wise lady! I am always thinking the same thing when I read tthe words "personal responsiblity" on this forum. It's just a backhanded way to slam the people they perceive as below them. Plain and simple. Simpy disgusting, if you ask me.

*

That's your opinion but that does not make it fact.

It is NOT FACT and definitely NOT THE CASE when I talk about personal responsibility.

Nothing I said was said with you in mind Demi, it was said about the atmosphere which tends to evolve whenever the term referred to as 'personal responsibility' gets brought up, yes on this forum but also on other forums too and most certainly in casual discussions which sometimes takes place around me in my own life.

I believe the term would not create the kind of disapproval and punitive atmosphere which tends to surround the term if the same people spent equal time using it in a positive and congratulatory way aimed at the same groups it is also used so often to indicating shame and disapproval.

Mylab you expressed it so much better than I ever could. I love your posts. A lot I lived personally and working with the disadvantage it brought a tear to my eyes because it brought the familiar to mind.

Regardless of where I hear it I feel the pain and the thought of someone being put down because of their circumstances. For some I know it is to make themselves feel they are better and for some it is because they do not have a clue of the struggle that a family is experiencing or how they got to that place even though they did everything right. As they say "S" happens.

Regardless of where I hear it I feel the pain and the thought of someone being put down because of their circumstances.

*

I have yet to see where anyone has been put down to to circumstances beyond their control.

I have yet to see where everyone in need has been lumped in a group as not being personally responsible; indeed, I have, and many others have specifically exempted people who have suffered hardships and that have sacrificed their futures for others, from being "personally responsible" for not having everything they need or everything they want.

It is unfair to wrongly characterize and/or accuse people who believe in personal responsibility of not being sympathetic to people who in are in dire circumstances due to circumstances beyond their control.

I think the difference in opinion and the rub comes in as to what is considered personal responsibility.

We all have decisions to make once we are capable of doing so and living with those decisions.

Demi
It is unfair to wrongly characterize and/or accuse people who believe in personal responsibility

When it becomes a philosophy, a reason that taxes are high, a pan response for every problem of a group of people that need assistance that is the problem.

As discussed in another topic unless a story of a specific person's situation is explained in detail they are spoke of as takers without any Personal Responsibility words used as a talking point.

Strange as has been said. If someone says the oil company is polluting the water we drink, the air we breath, killing the wildlife, or bank bailouts, special tax breaks for corporations etc. Personal Responsibility does not flow from the lips. So yes it is aimed at a group of people for some to feel good about themselves IMO and they do not care if the needy eats a rotten apple.

Romney at a May fundraiser, declaring that 47 percent of the population is made up of people who believe they are “victims,” and are “dependent on government.”

"So, if you buy a car, lose your job and can't afford the payments and walk away, is that as bad?"

Good people can fall on hard times through no fault of their own. When they have no way to pay off their obligations, their cars may be repossessed, and their property go into foreclosure. If they can't pay, they can't pay.

I would not think of walking away from an obligation I could actually meet as a "business decision." I would consider it an act of dishonesty, and a moral failure. The kind of property doesn't matter. It's the dishonest act itself I would seek to avoid.

If you're buying the car or house knowing you can't afford it, then you have failed from the beginning both in business and in a moral manner.

But we all know that's not how it usually happens.

People employed in decent jobs generally save a down payment, whether for a vehicle or a home, and go through the process of the purchase agreement, including obtaining the loan, inspections, and all that goes with it, in good faith. Most people continue to work, and continue to make those monthly payments. Some people even make double payments, applying more to the principle.

Sometimes, though, unforeseen circumstances happen that cannot be avoided. Your position at work is eliminated, your job is moved elsewhere, you are let go, you are seriously injured in an accident, a medical emergency befalls your family, etc... suddenly, you cannot meet this loan obligation because your income is no longer available.

There are several things one can try to do in order to work out the situation amicably to satisfy both parties... but when all else fails and no amicable arrangements can be made, what should you do?

Where children are part of the equation, I say they are priority number one. I would do what was best, with my children first and foremost in my mind.

Buying a material possession on time and in good faith is a business transaction, not a moral deal signed in blood. One does not threaten to take kidneys or first born children in the real world. The item is either repossessed, or some other avenue is followed.

But the idea of "good faith" runs both ways, too. Both parties must understand and agree to the deal they are entering into. And we already know this doesn't always happen.

What we recently witnessed during and after the "mortgage bubble" should have proven that.

I would not risk my children's health or well being just to make a payment on a material possession... but that's me. My moral obligation is first to my family, and second to business dealings.

"I would not think of walking away from an obligation I could actually meet as a "business decision." I would consider it an act of dishonesty, and a moral failure. The kind of property doesn't matter. It's the dishonest act itself I would seek to avoid."

Nik, what if I told you that the mortgage contract, something that both you and the lender have agreed to, and both you and the lender have signed, states very explicitly that, in so many words, "if you want, you can walk away from the house at any time and we will then at no further penalty to you....."?

And, what if the lender, knowing what he is "giving" you, is putting in an extra little charge to cover the likelihood that will happen?

I may be wrong on the details, and I wasn't aware that states can legislate such things as they appear to do, but I think, not 100% certain, that's the essence of what's going on.

Speaking of walking away, one of my private mortgage customers is currently in the process of forfeiting their $15,000 down payment, $10,000 in home improvements and $5,000 in equity to move into a rent subsidized housing project.

They're also pulling their kids from one of the best school systems in the area and effectively placing them in the worst school systems in the area.

Let me say again why is Lonnie such an example of personal responsibility who 'deserves' help and your average woman with children is not?
I dont have any problem with Lonnie getting help from his government-that is why we have an organized society rather than living in anarchy. A peaceful, prosperous, well fed society is a better one to live in for us all and that is why we keep trying to come up with a system that works well for everyone. Maybe we will eventually get it right.

October17 you are as fond as anyone of of stereotyping women in need-I suggest you do some googling and find out the truth for yourself (since you arent going to take my word for it)as to the circumstances of the average woman on assistance-your woman who has babies to get an additional $65 a month barely registers. I challange you to do this-facts are your friend.

"Nik, what if I told you that the mortgage contract, something that both you and the lender have agreed to, and both you and the lender have signed, states very explicitly that, in so many words, "if you want, you can walk away from the house at any time and we will then at no further penalty to you....."?"

Without seeing the actual language, I'm not prepared to give an opinion. I confess to not reading every word in every contract I've ever signed. I've never had to go back and look for a way out of a contract, so the part about not paying what I agreed to pay has never come up.

I would not think of walking away from an obligation I could actually meet as a "business decision." I would consider it an act of dishonesty, and a moral failure. The kind of property doesn't matter. It's the dishonest act itself I would seek to avoid.

Was it a moral failure then that the banks took their recently minted mortgages, bundled them and sold them to investors to the point that the banks no longer even knew who held the paper? Was it a moral failure that the banks relied on inflated drive-by appraisals? Was it a moral failure that the banks ignored people's personal financial statements and instead were handing out what are known as "liar loans" because they didn't care whether their borrower could afford to repay or not - their goal was to kick the can down the road?

There is enough moral failure to go to the stars and back. Luckily, mortgages don't concern themselves with morality. They are pretty straightforward legal documents so everyone knows what will happen if a mortgagor walks away from his or her loan. It's all business - no shaming involved.

Treating the mortgage holder dishonestly would not be an option for me. As long as he met his obligations, I would uphold my end of the bargain. I don't enter into business contracts lightly, and would not be looking for a way out unless I really could not pay.